DM question: how much do you incorporate PC backgrounds into the campaign?

[Lanefan]

Except that's not remotely true. It can be true and may be the case if we narrowly restrict our sense of RPGs to your games, but that is FAR from being a universal truth for RPGs. Sorry, but not all tables get "all the time in the world" regardless of the age of the participants. Some will only be one-shots. Some will only be 5-10 sessions. Some may get 20 sessions. There is no "all the time in the world" nonsense in the modern era.

Barring outside real-life circumstances getting in the way (an equal-opportunity hazard), that's purely by choice of the people involved. Particularly the GM.

If a game's a one-shot that's because either the GM set it up that way or the collective group chose it'd be that way.

If a game only goes for 20 sessions it's because either the GM set it up that way or because the group in general made that choice.

But if the GM sets it up to be open ended and the players choose to keep coming back then yes, you've got all the time in the world. Enjoy.

There are other games that some gamers want to try. There is a competition of attention. I think that most TTRPGs in the modern era lean into this reality instead of pretending that mega-decade campaigns that meet weekly in any way reflect the norm.

Again, barring external real-life circumstances it's a reality imposed only by one's own choices.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, in a case where the drives and goals and state of mind of the brother are all created by the GM, I don't see how you can do anything but force it, right? Perhaps the player has offered some bit of motivation or other detail for the brother as part of their backstory. "My brother got mixed up with the wrong crowd and left the farm..." or similar. In that case, it may help determine what's happened.

But it's all fiction. It can't be real.

To us. To the PCs it's real, and that's the reality I'd like to preserve.

So in the first paragraph, you apply the kind of reasoning that I think we would all try and follow to some extent when determining this kind of stuff. Where has the brother been, what's he thinking, what resources does he have at his disposal to enable his travel, etc. I think this is generally the approach we would all take,

Then in the second paragraph you essentially point out that all those details can be anything we want, so we can make anything we want happen, and we can justify it in any way.

Not quite that simple.

Whether the brother is an adventurer or a cobbler or a nobleman is determined by random roll at the same time his very existence is determined (again by random roll of how many siblings you have and what they are), while doing up the PC's history.

Thus, all this information is pre-known. The brother isn't just made to be an adventurer on the spur of the moment, which might be where you're getting confused.

 

[Lanefan]

I honestly wonder at times ... how the hobby would look if his radical views were somehow the norm.

It'd look better from here.

 

[Lanefan]

While statistically-improbable things do happen in the real world, they are exceedingly rare, and trying to incorporate them into our five-percent-granularity probability model would give disproportionate results.

The answer, much of the time, is to use a more granular modelling system. Though still not perfect, even d% is a vast improvement over d20.

If I try to extrapolate events based solely on likely scenarios, and you try to extrapolate based on all theoretical possibilities; then your conclusion will take a lot of time and effort to reach, while my conclusion will be much more accurate in the vast majority of cases. From a statistical perspective, such events are not worth consideration.

I never like to say that oddball-event-x is so unlikely as to be not worthy of consideration. Sure I might throw it out a huge percentage of the time, but it's still worth consdering provided one remembers to do so.

It's when oddball-event-x's become too common that the problems arise.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The die roll is fair (in the statistical sense of the term) and unbiased, just like real life. Doing things for dramatic purpose is imposing your own bias on what you want to happen, which is inherently unfair.

I don't think either of these points is necessarily true. Life isn't fair or unbiased. And imposing dramatic purpose on fiction is not unfair.

A die roll is a method to determine a random factor in the game. Choosing based on what would be exciting or interesting is another method. Neither is more or less fair.....they simply are.

While statistically-improbable things do happen in the real world, they are exceedingly rare, and trying to incorporate them into our five-percent-granularity probability model would give disproportionate results. If I try to extrapolate events based solely on likely scenarios, and you try to extrapolate based on all theoretical possibilities; then your conclusion will take a lot of time and effort to reach, while my conclusion will be much more accurate in the vast majority of cases. From a statistical perspective, such events are not worth consideration.

I don't know if I'd call coincidence exceedingly rare....they happen all the time. Certain types may be rare, or the odds of one may be far less than another....but statistically improbable things happen every day.

But regardless.....even if I have my game filled with statistical improbabilities and unlikely events.....so what?

In other words, as much as I struggle to understand your approach to GMing as described in this thread....at the end of the day, it's your preference and if it works for you, then great. But I don't get how you think that it's required. That's clearly not the case.

 

[hawkeyefan]

To us. To the PCs it's real, and that's the reality I'd like to preserve.

What does this mean, though?

I mean....do you whisper to the PCs "this is sooooo farfetched" as if you're sitting next to them in a movie theater?

I'm joking, but it's to make a point. What is plausible is, usually, a pretty wide range of things. Some are less plausible than others, but still fairly plausible in and of themselves.

Not quite that simple.

Whether the brother is an adventurer or a cobbler or a nobleman is determined by random roll at the same time his very existence is determined (again by random roll of how many siblings you have and what they are), while doing up the PC's history.

Thus, all this information is pre-known. The brother isn't just made to be an adventurer on the spur of the moment, which might be where you're getting confused.

So my PC who was a farmer might have a brother who is a nobleman?

Do you do this for every family member at the time of character creation? Or only with ones that may be relevant to the PCs story? If the latter, why potentially eliminate or reduce that relevance?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I don't think either of these points is necessarily true. Life isn't fair or unbiased. And imposing dramatic purpose on fiction is not unfair.

Life isn't fair, in the sense of justice or morality. It's absolutely fair in that it's free from outside influence (e.g. a fair coin flip).

Imposing dramatic purpose on an impartial reality is to treat it like mere fiction. It violates the premise of an RPG, which is that this is a real (believable) place.

But regardless.....even if I have my game filled with statistical improbabilities and unlikely events.....so what?

If I was a player at your table, I would not be having fun. Your approach says to me that you aren't taking this seriously, and that I would be wasting my time to do so.

But it is a matter of preference, yes. Some people enjoy role-playing, and others enjoy story-telling.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Imposing dramatic purpose on an impartial reality is to treat it like mere fiction. It violates the premise of an RPG, which is that this is a real (believable) place.

Again, who says this is the premise of an RPG? Who claims this? I can't think of any tabletop RPG that demands this in the rules.

But it is a matter of preference, yes. Some people enjoy role-playing, and others enjoy story-telling.

That is a bold distinction to make, and quite the narrow definition of "roleplaying".

 

[hawkeyefan]

Life isn't fair, in the sense of justice or morality. It's absolutely fair in that it's free from outside influence (e.g. a fair coin flip).

Imposing dramatic purpose on an impartial reality is to treat it like mere fiction. It violates the premise of an RPG, which is that this is a real (believable) place.

If I was a player at your table, I would not be having fun. Your approach says to me that you aren't taking this seriously, and that I would be wasting my time to do so.

But it is a matter of preference, yes. Some people enjoy role-playing, and others enjoy story-telling.

Ah, okay, thanks for explaining! Here I thought I was role-playing all this time. Silly me!

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Ah, okay, thanks for explaining! Here I thought I was role-playing all this time. Silly me!

You'd be surprised, how many people have in-grained their meta-gaming to such a level that they don't even realize they're doing it. As always, better awareness of our own cognitive processes can help.